The Journal

SHOULD THE CHILDREN OF SECOND WIVES BE GIVEN INFANT BAPTISM?

This is the issue raised in the “Lutheran today” of May, June, July 2015 inviting the views of the readers with some theological backing as whether such children be baptized or not.

As for the emphasis that “the Bible has not in a particular scripture discriminated who and who should be baptized and who should not be baptized” We should take note that there are conditions. Baptism is not just administered in any way. First of all you must show faith. Secondly you must show the sign of change. Otherwise, baptism cannot be simply administered simply because you want it.

Take for instance John the Baptist. When the sinners were touched by his preaching, group after group find out about what is expected of them before they were baptized. They were clearly told to change from the life they lived to the new life (Luke 3:1-14).

The crowd asked John the Baptist “What are we to do, then? (v.10). The answer was that, they are to show concern for one another, and share the little they have with those who lack. After which they came after one another. First of all were the tax collectors, they too wanted to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what are, we to do?” They were told not to collect more than is legal. When the soldiers asked the same question, their answer was lengthy: “Don’t take money from any one by force or accuse any one falsely. Be content with your pay” (v.14)

If you are a Christian, there must be evidence of change in your life. There must be things which were your practice that are abandoned by you. You cannot just go in as you used to be. In fact those things that you feel you cannot do without them must be abandoned. You cannot become a Christian and continue with those things that you are known with. For God call Abram to bless him and make his name famous, so that he will be a blessing to all the nations (Gen. 12:1-3). But not all have chosen to embrace such blessing.

Not just baptism as the way of salvation. Salvation itself was preordained for all mankind, Jews first (Rom. 10:5-21). But what is happing today? Even the Jews themselves have denied themselves the salvation. For the fact that the Bible has not discriminated who are not or to be baptized does not mean that all shall be baptized without any lay down procedure. If that should be administered without any consideration, there wouldn’t be any use for screening by the council of elders on who is eligible for and who is not. Besides, there would be no need for any church discipline which is yard stick to affirm who is a son, daughter or member of the church.

What has been the bone of contention was that “infants generally are not to be baptized”. Those churches that refused the practice of infant baptism instead practice dedication. They based their arguments on the fact that one has to believe before he/she is baptized (Acts. 2:38, Mk. 16:15-16). They questioned infant baptism for the fact that infant don’t speak to confessed their sins. For them, since the infants cannot confess their sins, they are to be dedicated until when they are grown – up.

The Lutherans and some churches based their teaching on the household baptism found in several scriptural references. Such houses might consist of infants that form part of the family. No portion indicated the isolation of infants in the cause of family baptism. To make process decent, parents stand for their infants, confessed on their behalf till when they were grown – up to speak for themselves, then, the baptism be confirmed. This is another area of debate as “why should parents stand for infant”. Parents has to stand for their infants, the basis is drawn in the scripture i.e some sick persons who were unable to speak, were unable to show faith, were healed because of the faith of their relatives (Mat. 15:26-28;Lk 7:2-10;Mk 2:4-5 etc).

Apart from parents standing for their children, the use of sponsor was introduced in the church. The sponsor has no role to play except when the parents of the infant backslides or died. When the baptism of the infant in question was not confirmed. Gerberding in his book, “The Lutheran Pastor” p. 300 “the use of sponsor was introduced in the days of Martyrdom, when Christian parent did not know today whether their life might not be demanded tomorrow” you can then see that a sponsor in infant baptism is a standby, he or she is not responsible for the infant until when the parents were either dead or backslidden.

In the LCCN constitution B.5.I.C Infant who has one of the parents not in good standing with the church can be baptized. The sponsors who are communicant members can stand for the infant. With the note that the erring parent cannot stand before the altar. This particular section refers to a husband who picks a second wife but has a child with the first wife. This is the infant that the constitution is referring to. The infant is to be baptized for the sake of the mother who is the first wife, but not for the sake of the husband who is not in good standing with the church. The Lutheran as a church that persisted on the infant baptism was not referring to the children of the second wives. Because both the husband and his second wife were not communicant members, both have the responsibility of bringing their children up in the way of God. Because of the importance of this responsibility a provision has been made in the name of sponsor. He or she is a stand by (i.e. his responsibility starts), should anything happens with the parents.

In this case you don’t expect a husband and his second wife to stand for their infant who cannot speak, because they cannot answer for them. Until when the church comes up with teachings to make polygamy an acceptable norm in the Christian Religion circle, just as it is in the traditional religion and Islam.

Apostle Paul stressed the criteria of being a worker in the vineyard of God: a husband to one wife; care for his family, especially his children to be very obedience (1 Tim. 3:1-7, Titus 1:6). No child will be baptized and grew in fear of God and be obedient if the parents are not concerned to be God fearing themselves. The parents are responsible in molding their children to be God fearing.

Time for infant baptism: infant baptism can be administered as circumcision rule of eight (8) days of birth (Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3). The Lutheran constitution, considering some reasons such as sickness, and other case arising has extended infant baptism from one (1) week to five years. Which means if an infant has gone beyond five (5) years he can himself seek adult baptism but not infant baptism any more. Such infant has then fallen in the company of the children of the second wives. The case of the children of the second wives was deliberate, since the parents have not met the standard of answering on behalf of their children. Since the Bible gives much attention to caring for children to grow in fear of God. The early church considers it important to look for sponsors to care for children if the parents were death or backslidden.

If we are all matured to be fed with bones we can go ahead to make some clarity on this issue. The explanation should be followed carefully as the babes who are to be fed with the milk (1 Cor. 3:1-2, Heb. 5:12-14).

One major thing to be considered by people Agitating against infant baptism, is to note that not all questions are answered by the scriptures. The conclusions are left to interpretations. And so it is with any given constitutions, decrees and what have you. The Bible has answered most questions than any other book in the world. But not all questions are answered in the Bible. Take for example, our lord Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul. There are issues handled by them that cannot be used today to solve some current issues. The Bible is so silent about some happenings today that we will love the Bible to address. So if you don’t have the knowledge of the scriptures, you will hardly give any interpretation that will solve some problems today. When we say that the scriptures are silent on some serious issues, we do not mean that the writers do not consider them as serious issues.

The point is that our experiences are different from theirs. The rampant waywardness experienced in the electronic age was not like that in their days. The drugs experienced today were not there in the days of the writers of the scriptures to be addressed. It should be noted that even today we speak according to the situation we find ourselves. And that is why you may feel as some writers were making conflicting views. For instance if you can commend a child for always remaining indoors, you may also condemned the same child for not going to the farm or striving to attain some needs.

The apostle Paul does a similar thing. When he condemned women and ordered them not to speak in the public (1 Cor. 14:33b – 35). Women are to prophesy with veils but not with the heads unveiled (1 Cor. 11:1-16). Again, when Jesus taught that there is nothing that goes into a person from the outside which can make him ritually unclean. But it is that comes out of a person that makes him unclean. Jesus said this with the intention to solve a particular issue, especially eating food with hands that were not washed. The act is what the Pharisees regarded it as making man unclean (Mk. 7:14 -23). But this saying alone raises different questions in the mind of the readers. If the readers of the Bible today were contemporaries of our Lord Jesus Christ they would have ask Him questions.

Again, when the Apostle Paul enjoyed the protection of government of the day, he legalized all the rulers as appointed by God. He therefore enjoined all to obey them (Rulers) (Rom 13:1-7). And if the readers of the day were of the same contemporary with the apostle, considering our experiences under dictators that denied our faith we will surely ask him (apostle) some questions.

No preacher would address the issue of adultery where the case is not practiced. We try to solve issues that were problem to the people. If the case of polygamy was not the order of the day or problem in their day, how can they find the solution to a case that does not exist? If baptism was not a problem talk less of infant baptism or a baptism to children of the second wives, how can we battle to find a solution to a problem that is not existing? I do not want to go abroad, we know the problem of polygamy as handled by the theologians and especially the African or black theologians. You can argue for or against.

But you know the generally accepted norm. In Christianity generally, monogamy was the accepted norm, be it a white practice or not. And if from within you want to change, Lutheran Church of Christ in Nigeria (LCCN) to African church. May I assure you, those Africans even in Nigeria that have chosen to have African church to practice all those things that they felt is African, have today changed to be evangelical in character. They do not practice what you may be thinking. And if you are running away from what is generally accepted, you may find it difficult to do it with a clear conscious. You may even find it difficult to convince people. You may even end up confusing people.

Our Lord Jesus Christ about divorce and marrying a divorcee link the two with adultery (Mk. 10:11-12). Let me assure you again that most of the polygamous are not secured, they felt uncomfortable, and are not free with their conscious. If you want to fight for them that their children be baptized as infants, first of all pick a second wife to convince those that practice polygamy that is accepted by you. And if you feel that there is no portion in the Bible that denied any person the right of baptism okay. We saw many people today without baptism. There are laid down procedures for baptism. You don’t just administer baptism to all without due process to be followed.

Rt. Rev. Clement Dogo is the Bishop of Todi Diocese.